DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
790 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / handwritten legal argument
File Size:
790 KB
Summary
This handwritten legal document argues that Congress intentionally excluded specific child abuse definitions found in § 3509(a) when making technical corrections in 1994, suggesting these definitions apply to civil reporting rather than criminal statutes. The text cites legal precedents such as *Ibarra v. Holder*, *Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement*, and *Brown v. Gardner* to support principles of statutory interpretation regarding congressional intent and context.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | ||
| Immigration & Customs Enforcement | ||
| DOJ | ||
| 10th Cir. |
Timeline (2 events)
1994 technical correction / conforming repeal
Filed 10/12/21
Relationships (3)
→
→
→
→
to
→
→
Key Quotes (3)
""Courts do not lightly assume that Congress has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply""Source
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
Quote #1
""Proper statutory construction requires considering a phrases placement and Purpose in the Statutory Scheme .... The meaning of statutory language plain or not depends on context.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
Quote #2
"Civil and Criminal definitions frequently differ"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,274 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 9 of 22
4
4
when Congress corrected this as a "technical
correction" / conforming repeal in 1994 they knowingly
did not include or reference the Child Abuse
definitions at § 3509 (a) (3)-(a) (9), (11), which appear
to be for tort law, and are clearly incompatible
with the Child definition at § 3509 (a) (2). These
civil definitions are for Reporting of abuse. 1 see
18 USC § 2258 which references them from Title 42.
see Ibarra v. Holder, 736 F.3d 902, 910 (10th Cir.
2013) (Civil and Criminal definitions frequently differ).
"Courts do not lightly assume that Congress
has omitted from its adopted text requirements
that it nonetheless intends to apply" Jama v.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335,
341 (2005). After one technical correction and
two later amendments surely Congress knew what
it was doing by not including or referencing the
§ 3509 (a) definitions from § 3253. Furthermore, the
limitation was misplaced. "Proper statutory
construction requires considering a phrases placement
and Purpose in the Statutory Scheme .... The
meaning of statutory language plain or not depends
on context.") Brown v. Gardner, 513 US 115, 118 (1994)
correction" / conforming repeal in 1994 they knowingly
did not include or reference the Child Abuse
definitions at § 3509 (a) (3)-(a) (9), (11), which appear
to be for tort law, and are clearly incompatible
with the Child definition at § 3509 (a) (2). These
civil definitions are for Reporting of abuse. 1 see
18 USC § 2258 which references them from Title 42.
see Ibarra v. Holder, 736 F.3d 902, 910 (10th Cir.
2013) (Civil and Criminal definitions frequently differ).
"Courts do not lightly assume that Congress
has omitted from its adopted text requirements
that it nonetheless intends to apply" Jama v.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335,
341 (2005). After one technical correction and
two later amendments surely Congress knew what
it was doing by not including or referencing the
§ 3509 (a) definitions from § 3253. Furthermore, the
limitation was misplaced. "Proper statutory
construction requires considering a phrases placement
and Purpose in the Statutory Scheme .... The
meaning of statutory language plain or not depends
on context.") Brown v. Gardner, 513 US 115, 118 (1994)
1. see § 3509 (a)(10) sex crime definition
DOJ-OGR-00005187
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document